We finally reach what is, prima facie, perhaps the most unexpected of all claimed contributions of a liberal education to the life of contemporary democratic states: economic competitiveness. The reason for its unexpected nature, indubitably, is the subliminal persistence of the aforementioned understanding of liberal education as being focussed on the liberal arts – and, therefore, standing in stark opposition to the inclusion of any kind of economic considerations in the educative process. That incarnation of liberal education, however – and as argued above – has since been forced to evolve in order to accommodate the demands of a market-based economy.
In the case of the UK, for instance, the “application of market principles to education in the Thatcher/Major years” became increasingly clear (Bridges &
141
Jonathan, 2003). According to the same authors, who followed the phenomenon rather closely throughout its development (Jonathan, 1983, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1997a, 1997b; Bridges, 1994; Bridges & Husbands, 1996), many educators at the time supposed its “cause to be a particular feature of the Anglo-American liberal conservatism”, an “approach to social policy […] that might be overthrown, in some countries at least, with a swing to the left in their politics and a change of government” (2003, p. 126). Contrary to this view, Jonathan argued that “the competitive individualism which legitimates a quasi-market in education” was in fact an “unacknowledged feature of that form of liberalism that informed both the social expansion of liberal education from the mid-twentieth century and the liberal philosophy of education” of that time (Idem) – a perspective corroborated by the chronological evolution of the phenomenon, which now leads us to the realization that policies pertaining to the application of market principles to education are indeed “more deep-seated and more widespread that some expectations might have suggested” (Idem). As such, even in countries where a political shift to the left did in fact take place – in the case of the UK, with Tony Blair’s “New Labour” – left- leaning governments tend to exhibit “no less a passion for market principles” than their predecessors (Idem).
Alongside the more perceptible and politically determined application of market principles to the organizational aspect of education, theorists of liberal education have endeavoured to demonstrate the inherent suitability of the latter’s educational goals with the demands of a market-driven society37. Dealing with this topic in The Demands of Liberal Education (2002), Levinson begins by advancing a somewhat critical view of the contemporarily widespread “subordination of education to economic concerns (often termed ‘economic imperatives’)”, which is materialized by an increased involvement of businesses in education, a renewed interest in vocational education, “and especially an increased comparison – to almost
37 That application of market principles being manifested, in terms of concrete policy, by five key
stipulations: i) The dismantling of state monopolies on education to allow a choice of service provider for “customers” and competition between providers; ii) The creation of real opportunities for choice among consumers, and an appreciation for that choice (diversification into private schools, technological institutes, religious schools, vocational training, and so on); iii) The provision of reliable and quantifiable data to inform consumer choice (independent assessments, league tables, etc.); iv) The encouragement for educational providers to be independent from state funding, by becoming entrepreneurial and generating alternative sources of income; v) The enabling of consumers to secure the option of their choice, whether from a public or private provider (Bridges & Jonathan, 2003, pp. 127-8).
142
an obsessional level – of one’s educational system with those of other countries deemed economically successful or competitive” (2002, p. 135). The nature of her initial consideration notwithstanding, Levinson goes on to adopt a pragmatic approach to the problem: given that economic concerns are a seemingly unavoidable presence in educational policy today, rather than bluntly refusing their legitimacy, the liberal theorist of education should strive to demonstrate the potential compatibility between the former and liberal education.
Levinson thus asserts that, while whenever the development of autonomy clashes with economic competitiveness it is the former that should take precedence – because “individuals’ development and exercise of autonomy is a more fundamental interest” – such a thing would only occur in a state whose “economic order will likely be illiberal”, and therefore undesirable (Idem, p. 136). In a desirable liberal democratic state, on the contrary, an “education for autonomy [such as the one promoted by liberal education] will create an economically competitive workforce” (Idem). And it will do so for a number of reasons; firstly, the development of children’s autonomy implies teaching them self-sufficiency, which “must in turn include teaching children the skills, knowledge, and habits necessary to find (preferably fulfilling) employment” (Idem).
Secondly, in our “modern, information-based economy”, there is often an overlapping between the capacities required by autonomy and those needed in the workforce: contrary to what happened in the early stages of industrial society, economic success “now relies on flexibility, creativity, adaptability, an ability to learn new skills quickly, and self-reliance” – which are exactly the characteristics “which one learns in the process of developing one’s capacity for autonomy” (Idem, p. 137).
Third and finally, the development of an autonomous workforce, comprised of individuals who are able to live authentic and fulfilling lives and according to the prescriptions of their reason, is a pre-requisite for the kind of freedom demanded by the overall success of the liberal democratic state’s political project. If education for economic competitiveness is found to be incompatible with education for autonomy, then that state (along with its economic success) ceases to represent a worthwhile aspiration – and “we should therefore be unconcerned if education for autonomy does not support such an economy” (Idem, p. 138). As such, there is seemingly good
143
reason to conclude not only on the compatibility between educating for autonomy and underlying economic concerns, but also on the clear benefits of liberal education towards economic competitiveness (and success) within a truly liberal democratic state.